tv [untitled] January 26, 2011 5:00pm-5:30pm PST
side where this becomes a retaining wall underneath the proposal to pick up the house, what occurs is that those trees could be saved. i think additional cost savings might be incurred. i think our proposal to make this work successfully is really to raise that front wall where it is highlighted at about 12 inches. i have looked at this again and a structural proposal from the applicant and steadied the cross sections in order to come up with this. i think that we have a necessary cut and slopes that are allowed. this needs to be more steady since i don't have the opportunity to go on site to
verify these things. we will see if there are any benefits while this project is being reviewed. thank you. >> how tall is the garage? >> we are less than 10 feet. we are about 8 feet from the high point from the top of our wall. their proposal is actually a higher wall at this point and their proposal is about 11 feet from this point up. this is an existing wall. i think mr. sanchez would agree that either proposal would probably work under the code requirements. >> ok.
thank you. í9>> your location is differentn that you have some reduced height there. your scheme is contingent upon being able to have the right height on the southern side of the door but also to be within the amount ofjé':@jylse the sidewalk and to be able to slope down. are you sure that works? >> i have studied that section. our condition is about 23% on the southern end where we are working the encroachment at 23%. this gets reduced on the northern end and so this is a hyperbolic -- for the encroachment area. this is similar to what they have proposed with respect to
their encroachment. thank you. >> are you finished with your presentation? >> yes. >> i am prepared to answer any questions for the arborist. given the location of your proposed door centered on these trees, the trees would have to be pruned significantly? >> they would not have to be pruned except the secondary branches. this would be a normal pruning. the root pruning would be limited to a cut for the
>> i am the designer. i just wanted to raise a point that the design proposals that claims that they would be raising the wall by 12 inches. they do have the situation and they would be raising this at a wall height by at least 21 inches or 3 7 inch steps. it would change the entry to the front door by three steps, a claim that is not mentioned in their proposal. >> we have and plan that
requires the removal of icky trees, one of which we will replace. mr. hardy is not want to remove the trees. we will lose the progress. we are working in the permit process. if we have to execute the new plan, we would have to reset the contract with our contractor which is a fixed price contract. the cost of commodities has gone up significantly. there will be an additional cost for us. i think there are two factors
here, one this time and one is money as well as the change was the new approach would make to the front of our home. again, we ask you to approve a request to approve the two trees and approve the project. >> i would like to ask one more thing, i am a person who is disabled and normally i stay at home and now i need to start looking people walking the street. the walls come down. have we built another wall? that is not a good idea. this has the same amount of soil. the neighbor could enjoy the trees and everything.
>> there is the replacement tree potential. the initial application showed zero replacement tree but it also did not include a significant tree. >> this would be $1,700? >> unfortunately, we cannot take the tree so we would rather have a tree so we would prefer to have the tree as soon as possible. >> you have some latitude for
what you can request. >> you can do this at the discretion? >> yes. >> it sounds like if we up held this permit, that would mean the tree could be removed. the tree would be removed because of the importance of the grudge -- galosgarage. it seems a little bit backwards said to me. >> typically, if the property owner does not have all of the necessary permits and then that is a condition of the removal so
they would not be allowed to proceed with removal until they do in fact received the building and planning permits as required. add to the time -- that was a condition placed on the order. the documentation demonstrates approved plans and all required building permits and to submit a fee and then they would be granted a removal permits. this does insurer that of the trees would come out if in fact the garage goes nowhere. >> i have a question for mr. sanchez. you mentioned at the height of the garage, could you talk about that? >> the code section this, that
height to 10 feet. there is also required stairs and a to be factored as well which would not have the same limit. we were not party to this appeal so we have not received all of the materials. what i would say is that this is a concern that we would have, how much they might have to encroach right away and whether or not they would be resulting in loss of two of street parking spaces. that is concerned we would pass. wheeler also have the planning code consideration and whether or not it meets the obstructions and that some of the process concerns.
we have not sent out the neighborhood notification yet. we still have the permit. revisions could be submitted for what we have on file. i would imagine that if the board was to choose that the trees should be removed, they need to come up with an alternative. we have the permit and we have not sent out a notification. sut the board of vote -- the board is aware of where the processes. >> thank you. >> what about the historic facades? >> in the staff reviewed the current proposal and felt that that wasn't adequate proposal. i have not reviewed any alternative proposal. >> thank you. bédj >> the matter is submitte.
>> it appears that neither party is against the construction, it might be the location and maybe the trees. from a technical point of view, there is greater safety in aligning the foundation and the wall that will be constructed with the major structure of the building. in these kind of instances, there is always the potential for settlement.
>> if we were to uphold this in every way, we add to that placement and that would be put in at the discretion of the department of urban forestry. >> i tend to -- i would like to save the tree but i take comfort that this does not have any impact on wildlife habitat or is a native species at issue.
there is also an impact about the removal of the trees. it seems that this neighborhood has survived these issues before and i know that these are near delores park so i would be inclined to uphold the department. >> i would like to see an alternative expiration to save the tree. is there a motion? >> the action that commissioner garcia was proposing, does require modifying the order and you would be allowing and replacement. >> there are separate appeals before you that each need their
own code. >> i would clear up the first one. i would move that leopold the department. -- that leopold of the department. >> i think i might want to add conditions. >> i think the contingency on the building plan for approval is already in there. >> thank you. >> if you can call the roll on the first item. the motion as from the vice president to uphold as it is. on the motion to uphold as is -- >> aye.
>> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> the permit is upheld. >> i would move that we overturned the department on 1b because new information arose from the time the brief was submitted. the appellant would like to replace one of the trees so that would obviate the need for one of the trees. this is a significant tree. this would maine on the street a tree which i think is $1,700. i would like to overturn them also an order to place a condition on the permit to that any replacement tree be done at the discretion of the department
of public works bureau of urban forestry. >> can we call the roll on that? >> the motion is to uphold a permit with two conditions -- >> you are modifying the order. >> we still need the objectives. >> the permit would be upheld by your modified to permit in two ways -- you are striking defeat on the street fees -- >> no, on a significant tree. >> the tree that will be replaced. >> and come you are granting -- and, you are granting for the planting at the discretion of --
in terms of size and species. >> ok. again, to uphold that the -- strikes the significantly, granting a replacement tree in terms of species and size. on the motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the permit is upheld with those conditions. thank you. >> i would move quickly to our next two appeals and see if we can get them done before 6:00. please call the items. >> colin 2 items a and 2 b, the
appellant in both cases is jason bley and the respondent in the first case is is zoning administrator and in the second, the department of building inspection. the first appeal intel's the release of suspension addressed to the dbi director asking that the bpa be lifted. the second appeal is the protest of the issuance on december 1st, 2010, to the charity cultural service center, a permit to alter a building, this is a revision to the plan. dinky. >> we will -- thank you.
>> we will call these together. >> it bears repeating that i am sad that we have to be here but i'm excited that we are at the tail end of this issue and we very much need your thoughtful input. >> the permit holders not here? >> no, no one is shown. >> for the notified? >> yes. >> i actually spoke to one of them today and i mentioned a time and they said that they understood that. they had written notice prior to that. >> sorry to interrupt you. >> no problem. >> commissioners, you have the decision to make whether we
should go forward. >> the group this year. -- is here. >> i did not think this was possible today. nevertheless, great effort has gone into explaining what has happened in the last six months and it has provided you with a lot of reading for the benefit of the public or anyone can -- a could be watching. there has been a slight deviation from what was discussed here in may and some work said occurred which exceed what was approved at that time. that work could seen as very small. the spirit of it and what it is doing and the final product of what we want, this is
significant. that period has extended beyond just myself and has involved various people from various city departments. i and stand people from the planning department made some good efforts. where this was stopped, it was stopped at 8. that the ceiling that was proposed. putting it back four feet, that mitigated the problem. even at 4 feet, it mitigates it more than nothing. it does not really satisfy the spirit and i think that there are so many other alternatives and chinatown is worthy of those
better alternatives. i am not a designer but i have enough time and experience to know that there are all sorts of different light fixtures and ways in which important buildings, people design those things. that is really the direction the discussion should go. how do we smooth out this over so this work does not impede the restoration and preservation of this structure? i suppose i should give the floor for any questions. >> and do you have a photo showing the height of the ceiling? >> i hope that it comes through on my computer screen. 6shlt>> the front and the bottoe
been put on to that so that is the exact location that it is still in. >> are you aware of where the structural framing for that is in relation to the window? >> that is a very thoughtful question. i've not been in there in many years and i was wondering that as one of the possible alternatives. i know that there is a hundred year old metal beam that goes across the front of all of the storefronts and in the neighboring two storefronts, i know that this is at least two feet.
what the suspended ceiling has done is that it has gone down fam the ceiling. theoretically, all of these things could be on line with where that is and that would not block any windows. . thank you. >> there is no representation here from the permit holder. mr. sanchez. >> yes, we tried to get to these issues resolved here. my understanding of the history of this is that the project sponsor had started construction without the benefit of permit. the building permit issued a notice of violation.
we have indicated that any permit would be routed to planning for review and we requested as such. we thought it be the ability to mitigate the impact on the building and we did not believe that any of the decisions that we made had violated the board's decision. the board's concern was with the exterior of the building and alterations to the character- defining features of the building and not something which is a